Not Permissible To Reject Complaint Citing Complainant's Failure To Take Action If Addressee Has Not Claimed Summons: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court held that it is not permissible to reject a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act based on the Complainant's failure to take action if the addressee has not claimed the summons from the Court.
The Court allowed a Criminal Appeal challenging the dismissal order of the Trial Court on grounds for not taking steps after the Magistrate took cognizance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The Court emphasized that once the addressee has not claimed the summons from the Court, it is necessary to issue a non-bailable Warrant.
“Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also on perusal of the order sheet, it appears that the Trial Court committed an error. Once the addressee has not claimed the summons from the Court, it is necessary to issue Non Bailable Warrant. However, the order sheet did not disclose the issuance of Non Bailable Warrant against the accused. Assigning the reasons that the complainant did not take steps and dismissed the complaint which appears to be erroneous and the order of dismissal is required to be set aside”, Justice S Rachaiah observed.
Advocate R. Shashidhara appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Javeed S appeared as Amicus Curiae.
A complaint was registered for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The matter was set down for a sworn statement and thereafter the Magistrate took cognizance and registered the case. The matter was posted for taking steps but the Trial Court dismissed the complaint for not taking steps. A Criminal Appeal was filed under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) challenging the order passed by the Trial Court.
The Court observed that the order sheet did not disclose the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against the accused. The Court noted that assigning the reasons that the complainant did not take steps and dismissed the complaint which appears to be erroneous and the order of dismissal is required to be set aside. Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the impugned order.
Cause Title: Sri. H. S. Manjunath v Veena (2023:KHC:36550)